Canon SX540 HS vs. Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR: An In-Depth Technical Comparison for Photography Enthusiasts

Choosing a compact superzoom camera involves balancing sensor technology, zoom capabilities, autofocus sophistication, and ergonomics, among other factors. Here, we dissect two contenders from Canon and Fujifilm - the Canon PowerShot SX540 HS (2016) and the Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR (2012). Both target the niche of users seeking extensive zoom ranges in relatively portable bodies, but diverge significantly in design philosophy, imaging approach, and feature sets. This comparative analysis draws upon extensive hands-on evaluation, layered with real-world usability insights, to aid discerning buyers in selecting the optimal tool for their photographic ambitions.

First Impressions and Form Factor: Size and Ergonomics Matter

A critical initial consideration is the camera's physical presence and handling comfort, as this impacts prolonged shooting, stability, and portability. The Canon SX540 HS adopts an SLR-like bridge form with a pronounced grip and substantial dimension, while the Fujifilm F660EXR embraces a more compact “point-and-shoot” aesthetic.

• Canon SX540 HS: Measures 120 x 82 x 92 mm and weighs 442 g, offering a solid, substantial feel suitable for users requiring a robust grip during telephoto shoots. Despite lacking weather sealing, the camera’s bulk affords steady hold and button accessibility.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: At 104 x 59 x 33 mm with only 217 g, it champions portability and pocket friendliness, although this compactness can inhibit prolonged comfort and restrict quick manual interventions.

This dichotomy suggests a trade-off: the Canon model suits those prioritizing handling during extended sessions, especially with heavy telephoto reach, whereas the Fujifilm appeals to travel photographers demanding lightweight gear but accepting limited manual control finesse.

Control Layout and User Interface: Navigating the Shooting Experience

The top control layout and interface usability greatly influence shooting efficiency, especially under dynamic conditions.

• Canon SX540 HS: Incorporates a conventional mode dial for rapid switching between full auto, programmed, shutter, aperture, and manual modes. Dedicated buttons for ISO, exposure compensation, and video functions streamline operational fluidity. The absence of a viewfinder is notable, relying solely on the rear LCD.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Offers fewer dedicated controls reflective of its compact design, with reliance on menus and rear buttons. The lack of a mode dial may slow mode changes, requiring menu engagement. Similar to the Canon, it lacks a viewfinder.

From an expert perspective, the Canon’s more traditional layout enhances workflow for photographers accustomed to manual overrides, whereas the Fujifilm’s pared-down controls may frustrate power users but satisfy casual shooters.

Sensor Architecture and Image Quality: The Core of Photographic Output

Image quality hinges mostly on sensor specifications and processing architecture. Both cameras deploy small sensors with slight variance in dimension and technology.

• Canon SX540 HS: Utilizes a 1/2.3” BSI-CMOS sensor at 20 MP resolution, measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm (28.07 mm²). The BSI (Backside Illuminated) design enhances low light sensitivity by improving photon capture efficiency. Max native ISO is 3200, with no ISO boosting.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Features a 1/2” EXR-CMOS sensor (6.4 x 4.8 mm; 30.72 mm²) with 16 MP effective resolution. The EXR sensor incorporates dual capture technologies enabling dynamic range enhancement and noise reduction through pixel binning schemes in specific modes. It supports up to ISO 3200 standard and boosts to ISO 12800 artificially in extended ISO modes.

Technical insight: The Canon’s higher pixel count on a smaller effective area renders somewhat denser photosites, which may impact noise performance at elevated ISOs. The Fujifilm’s EXR tech offers the flexibility to prioritize either resolution, dynamic range, or sensitivity, granting users adaptive quality trade-offs depending on shooting conditions.

Rear LCD and LiveView: Composing with Confidence

Both cameras lack electronic viewfinders and rely on rear LCD screens for framing.

• Both feature 3.0-inch fixed displays with near identical resolution (~460k dots), though none is touch-enabled.

• The Fujifilm’s TFT technology provides bright, vivid imaging, but with limited viewing angles typical of this class.

• The Canon’s screen excels slightly in daylight visibility, aided by anti-reflective coatings, an advantage when shooting outdoors or in bright environments.

For photographers dependent on LiveView framing, the Canon’s display is moderately more usable in diverse lighting, although the absence of touch control reduces intuitive navigation.

Lens Performance: Versatility and Optical Reach

Zoom range and lens speed remain decisive for superzoom cameras. Here, the Canon offers an extraordinary 24-1200 mm (50x optical zoom) compared to Fujifilm’s 24-360 mm (15x optical zoom).

• Canon SX540 HS:

  • Lens aperture F3.4-6.5; relatively slow at telephoto end, necessitating good light or stabilization.

  • Fixed lens; optical quality is commendable for the zoom extent but moderate distortion and chromatic aberration can occur at extremes.

• Fujifilm F660EXR:

  • Lens aperture F3.5-5.3; slightly faster at telephoto’s long end than Canon.

  • Macro focusing capability down to 5 cm allows closer detail capture, a notable advantage over Canon’s 0 cm macro mode.

In practical use, the Canon’s vastly superior reach favors wildlife and distant subjects, although image quality may degrade and stabilization demands increase at full zoom. Fujifilm’s shorter zoom is more suitable for general-purpose photography offering sharper edge performance and better control for macro and moderate telephoto work.

Autofocus System: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

Autofocus performance strongly affects success across genres - especially dynamic subjects like sports or wildlife.

• Canon SX540 HS:

  • Employs contrast-detection AF without phase sensors.

  • Features face detection and eye detection focusing.

  • Continuous AF and single AF modes exist, but no advanced subject tracking.

  • AF speed is moderate; hunting can occur in low light or telephoto ranges.

• Fujifilm F660EXR:

  • Also contrast-detection, but with advanced AF tracking enabled.

  • Face detection present; no animal eye AF.

  • Continuous AF with subject tracking provides improved focus retention on moving subjects.

  • AF speed is faster overall compared to Canon in good lighting.

From a field test standpoint, Fujifilm’s enhanced tracking and burst capability (11 fps vs. Canon’s 5.9 fps) render it better suited for capturing fleeting moments or action within its focal length limitations. Canon’s AF system, while adequate for general photography, struggles with moving subjects or tricky lighting.

Burst Shooting and Buffer Capacity

High continuous shooting rates benefit sports and wildlife photographers.

• Canon SX540 HS: Offers 5.9 fps shooting; buffer limited by processing and storage speed.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Delivers 11 fps burst rate, considerably more amenable to capturing sequences.

While neither camera targets professional action photography, Fujifilm’s higher frame rate is a meaningful asset for enthusiast users focusing on motion capture.

Image Stabilization: Counteracting Camera Shake

Stabilization technology is vital at extended zooms or handheld shooting in low light.

• Canon SX540 HS: Uses optical image stabilization within lens elements.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Employs sensor-shift stabilization compensating for camera movement.

Both approaches effectively reduce blur in normal shooting but sensor-shift type can introduce slight image softness at times. Optically stabilized lenses tend to maintain sharper images, especially at long focal lengths. Thus, Canon’s stabilization is preferable for super-telephoto handholding.

Video Specifications and Practical Usage

Video capability is integral even for primarily still-focused users.

• Both models support Full HD 1080p recording.

• Canon SX540 HS records at 1920 x 1080 resolution up to 60 fps; offering smoother motion capture; video formats include MPEG-4 and H.264.

• Fujifilm F660EXR supports 1080p at 30fps only.

• Neither supports 4K or advanced video features like microphone input; internal microphones are mono and fair quality.

Canon’s superior frame rate and encoding options make it marginally better for casual video shooters, although neither camera targets videographers seeking professional workflows.

Battery Life and Storage: Shooting Endurance Considerations

Prolonged shooting demands reliable battery and ample storage compatibility.

• Canon SX540 HS: Rated for 205 shots per charge, using proprietary NB-6LH battery.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Offers longer endurance with 300 shots per charge, using NP-50A battery.

• Both cameras accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards and provide a single card slot.

The Fujifilm’s superior battery life aligns with its lightweight design, better suiting extended travel or all-day shooting without spare cells.

Connectivity and Additional Features

• Canon SX540 HS: Supports Wi-Fi and NFC for wireless image transfer and remote control via smartphone apps.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Lacks wireless connectivity, but includes GPS logging to geotag images.

Connectivity-wise, Canon’s Wi-Fi capabilities add contemporary convenience absent in the Fujifilm, although GPS functionality is valuable for travel and documentarians requiring location metadata.

Build Quality and Environmental Resistance

Neither model possesses weather sealing, dustproofing, or shockproof attributes, confining them to controlled environments. The Canon’s heft offers a perception of sturdiness, but neither is professional-grade in durability.

Practical Application Across Photography Genres

Synthesizing specifications with field experience allows genre-specific performance insights.

Canon SX540 HS front Canon SX540 HS screen back Fujifilm F660EXR screen back

Portrait Photography

• Canon SX540 HS: Higher resolution benefits fine detail capture, although limited aperture range and lack of RAW limit post-processing latitude. Face and eye detection improve focus reliability, but background blur (bokeh) is constrained by lens speed - especially at telephoto.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Lower resolution but EXR sensor benefits localized noise reduction for smoother skin tones. Macro focus at 5 cm allows creative close portraits. Raw output absence limits professional retouching.

Landscape Photography

• Canon SX540 HS: 20 MP sensor offers superior resolution for large prints and cropping. Dynamic range is modest, consistent with small sensor capacity. Zoom versatility is somewhat less relevant for landscapes.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: EXR sensor modes enhance dynamic range capabilities, desirable in high contrast environments. Lower megapixel count potentially limits large-format output.

Wildlife Photography

• Canon SX540 HS: Remarkable 1200 mm equivalent zoom enables distant subject capture. Optical stabilization aids in managing camera shake at extreme telephoto. The AF system's lack of dedicated tracking is a hindrance.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: 360 mm maximum reach limits wildlife framing but superior AF tracking and higher burst rates help capture action within range.

Sports Photography

• Canon SX540 HS: Burst speed and AF responsiveness insufficient for fast-paced sports; aperture constraints limit low-light indoor use.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Does better with 11 fps continuous shooting and AF tracking, though focal length cap constrains distant field sports.

Street Photography

• Canon SX540 HS: Larger size detracts from discreet shooting; no viewfinder hinders quick composition.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: Compact and pocketable, offering stealth in urban environments. Quick access to zone focus modes would improve candid shots, but absence of touch controls slows response.

Macro Photography

• Canon SX540 HS: Macro focusing ability is minimal due to lens design.

• Fujifilm F660EXR: 5 cm minimum focusing distance opens creative opportunities; sensor-shift stabilization supports sharp close-ups.

Night and Astrophotography

• Both limited by small sensors and absence of RAW support. The Canon’s max ISO 3200 and BSI sensor provide better noise control comparatively; the Fujifilm’s extended ISO 12800 is synthetically boosted and noisy.

Video Use

• Canon’s 1080p60 video affords smoother motion and better versatility.

• Fujifilm capped at 1080p30; both limited by absent external audio input and lack of stabilization beyond sensor/lens systems.

Travel Photography

• Fujifilm’s light weight and GPS module favor travel photographers valuing compactness and image geo-tagging.

• Canon’s extended zoom compensates when baggage weight is less constrained, facilitating versatile shooting.

Professional Workflows

• Neither camera supports RAW capture, severely limiting flexibility for professional output.

• Both produce JPEGs optimized for casual use; neither integrates with professional tethering or advanced workflow software.

Performance Ratings and Value Propositions

Comprehensive bench testing and field evaluation across technical parameters yield:

Suitability According to Photography Genres

• Portraits: Canon preferred for higher resolution and face/eye AF; Fujifilm for close-up macro portraits.

• Landscapes: Fujifilm’s EXR dynamic range modes edge ahead for dynamic scenes.

• Wildlife: Canon’s zoom range trumps; Fujifilm may outperform slightly in AF tracking but at range disadvantage.

• Sports: Fujifilm’s faster burst favorable for near-range action.

• Street: Fujifilm’s compactness and GPS win for travel candid shots.

• Macro: Fujifilm recommended due to closer focusing and stabilization.

• Night/Astro: Neither ideal; Canon yields modestly cleaner images.

• Video: Canon delivers smoother frame rates and better handling.

• Travel: Fujifilm’s light weight, long battery life, and GPS functionality excel.

• Professional Use: Neither adequately equipped for professional RAW workflows or rugged environments.

Final Recommendations: Choosing Between Canon SX540 HS and Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR

Selecting the optimal model requires reflecting on photographic priorities and operational expectations.

• Choose the Canon PowerShot SX540 HS if:

  • You require extensive telephoto reach for wildlife or distant subjects.

  • You favor traditional photographic controls with manual shooting modes.

  • You value higher resolution for large prints or cropping.

  • Wireless image transfer and quick smartphone integration are priorities.

  • Video recording at 60 fps is desirable.

• Choose the Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR if:

  • Portability and weight are crucial, e.g., for travel or street photography.

  • You want advanced autofocus tracking and higher burst rates for dynamic scenes.

  • You appreciate macro shooting and stabilization benefits.

  • GPS metadata logging for travel documentation is important.

  • Longer battery life to support extended excursions is required.

Summary

Both cameras represent capable small-sensor superzoom solutions tailored to distinct user needs. The Canon SX540 HS impresses with its extraordinary zoom and robust manual controls, catering to users demanding telephoto versatility. In contrast, the Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR excels in portable usability, autofocus sophistication, and creative macro shooting, benefiting travelers and enthusiasts favoring agility over reach.

Ultimately, neither camera substitutes for higher-tier enthusiast or professional interchangeable-lens systems, but each holds merit as a specialized, budget-conscious tool for targeted photographic applications.

This comparison utilized extensive hands-on field testing, encompassing technical bench metrics and real-world shooting scenarios to ensure comprehensive, expert-validated guidance for camera buyers seeking an informed, practical recommendation.